Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

Is it impossible for God to create a population that undergoes random mutations? Also, does natural selection mean God doesn't exist?

No

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope, never said that at all.



Yep. But remember, you're talking about populations adapting without evolving. Getting bad teeth because you don't brush isn't adaptation.



Again, read the actual paper the news article is describing. It's all about how evolution shaped the human mandible, which means it supports my argument rather than yours.

Side note: Brushing teeth doesn't affect rates of tooth decay. It does affect general hygiene. Tooth decay is caused by mineral imbalance / deficiency. That is why you have whole populations that never use toothbrushes without tooth decay. Also why you have tooth decay in cultures that have regular brushing.

But you are doing the argument fallacy thing again. The response was not about tooth decay but rather formation of the jaw shape and dental arches. That was affected by the diet of the population. It would manifest itself as a rapid change in one generation.

As for your final interpretation, you haven't proved any sort of evolution yet. And you avoid any of the obvious questions that have already been asked on this board. So keep on as you like, you aren't persuading anyone new with argument lack like that.

 

[Stripe]

Nope. Go ahead and define it. And show how it is supported by the Bible. Your theory. You explain it. You prove it.
Don't shift the burden to me.

So we use a word you claim to understand and then demand that we provide a definition of it because you think we are not using it correctly, but you won't explain yourself past saying that three Biblical characters all called sheep "sheep."

And then you have the temerity to accuse us of shifting the burden of proof?

You're a fruit loop.

Ask Jose Fly. He once quoted 3 definitions we had given him over the course of time...and each definition was consistent with each other, and consistent with the way the word 'kinds' is used in Genesis.

:chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure...Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers according to this article.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

First, why are you citing a paper that's about speciation? Stripe says speciation never happens.

Second, I don't think you understand the paper, or you didn't bother to read it. Here's the key part that's right there in the abstract, "We find marked phenotypic variation despite lack of mitochondrial DNA monophyly and few differences in other putatively neutral nuclear markers."

Do you understand what they're saying there, and how it doesn't match up with what you said?

 

[chair]

So we use a word you claim to understand and then demand that we provide a definition of it because you think we are not using it correctly, but you won't explain yourself past saying that three Biblical characters all called sheep "sheep."

And then you have the temerity to accuse us of shifting the burden of proof?

You're a fruit loop.



:chuckle:

I am giving you a chance to define your terms and give them Biblical support. Either do it, or back off, loser.

 

[Jose Fly]

No

Then Stripe's experimental design is meaningless, since it assumes the way to differentiate between God-driven changes and natural evolution is to look for random mutation and natural selection, and if you see them, that means God wasn't involved.

 

[Stripe]

It's exactly what you said doesn't happen.

Making things up isn't going to help you.

A population expressed a trait and performed better in a new environment because of its capacity to adapt. No random mutations. No natural selection. No evolution. And to provide scientific validity to my ideas, I proposed two means of falsification. However, the evolutionists are avoiding those like the plague.

Simply put, you're wrong. Very, very wrong. I know you like to think yourself infallible, but reality can be a bit harsh.

Where? Direct quote from the paper please.

Darwinists hate reading.

Are you saying you believe God personally and intentionally directs each and every mutation that occurs, and has occurred over the course of history?

:yawn:

I want to be clear on this.

No, you don't.

Is it impossible for God to create a population that undergoes random mutations? Also, does natural selection mean God doesn't exist?

How about we stick to science. You have enough trouble with that without pretending you're capable of a theological discussion. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

its interesting that mutations can duplicate existing genes, but it woUld be impossible for them to create one.

Um....the paper describes the formation of new genes via the copying and combination of different parts of different genes. Basically what you're arguing is that taking different letters of the alphabet, copying them, and combining them doesn't count as "making words".

Deny, deny, deny......

 

[Jose Fly]

But you are doing the argument fallacy thing again. The response was not about tooth decay but rather formation of the jaw shape and dental arches. That was affected by the diet of the population. It would manifest itself as a rapid change in one generation.

Again, read the paper. If you can't be bothered to do so, there's nothing to talk about.

As for your final interpretation, you haven't proved any sort of evolution yet. And you avoid any of the obvious questions that have already been asked on this board. So keep on as you like, you aren't persuading anyone new with argument lack like that.

You're assuming that the reason I posted the paper showing observed evolution was to persuade, rather than to sit back and get a good laugh at the creationists as they flail their arms, stomp their feet, and come up with as many excuses as they can to make it go away.

Your mistake. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

I am giving you a chance to define your terms and give them Biblical support.

The terms have been defined and you know exactly what they are. :loser:

Then Stripe's experimental design is meaningless, since it assumes the way to differentiate between God-driven changes and natural evolution is to look for random mutation and natural selection, and if you see them, that means God wasn't involved.

Making things up for others to believe is called the fallacy of the straw man.

Learn to discuss the challenge that has been issued instead of saying anything you can to pretend that it does not exist.

 

[Stripe]

The reason I posted the paper ... was to ... get a good laugh at the creationists.

Which makes you a troll. :troll:

 

[Jose Fly]

A population expressed a trait and performed better in a new environment because of its capacity to adapt. No random mutations. No natural selection. No evolution.

Huh....that's funny. I'm looking at the paper and it describes the mutations that led to the trait (duplications hexose transport loci), how the trait was favored by natural selection (selection favored the strain with the new trait), and how it all means the population evolved.

But here you are claiming none of that is in the paper. Hmmmmm.....what do I go with....the actual words in the actual paper, or Stripe telling me those words aren't in the paper, even though I can see them? Decisions, decisions.....:rotfl:

And to provide scientific validity to my ideas, I proposed two means of falsification. However, the evolutionists are avoiding those like the plague.

I asked you specific questions about your proposed test. Are you going to answer them?

Darwinists hate reading.

Stop dodging Stripe. You said the paper describes the mutations as non-random. I'm looking at the paper right now....where did they say that? Or are you lying?

No, you don't.

Again you dodged the question. Do you believe God personally and intentionally causes every mutation that occurs, and has occurred throughout history?

How about we stick to science. You have enough trouble with that without pretending you're capable of a theological discussion. :up:

And yet another dodge. Again, your proposal seems to assume that random mutation and natural selection negate God being involved. Is that accurate?

 

[Jose Fly]

Which makes you a troll. :troll:

Oh don't get me wrong....it'd be nice if a creationist would step up to the plate and actually discuss the content of the paper like an adult, but I'm certainly under no illusions that it's likely to happen. So in the absence of that, might as well get some good laughs out of it. :chuckle:

 

[Tyrathca]

Shock.... You mean they were not genetically identical? ... I wonder why? Ha

That was not what I was referring to 6 but thanks for reinforcing how little you understand genetics.

Ty..... There are small changes in the genome between you and me. We both have mutations unique to us. We have differences between us because of 'selection' (sexual selection and natural selection including things like our diets and climate). But... You, African pygmies, Neandertals, Inuit and me are the same 'species'

That's nice



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[patrick jane]

:mock: Silent Hunter

 

[Cross Reference]

That was not what I was referring to 6 but thanks for reinforcing how little you understand genetics.
That's nice

Irrespective of not being able to explain species notwithstanding, perhaps you could enlighten us knownothing's why it is that all that has evolved is NOT cloned from and orginal copy?

 

[6days]

You're assuming that the reason I posted the paper showing observed evolution was to persuade, ....

No... assuming that you thought the title of the article was good

its interesting that mutations can duplicate existing genes, but it woUld be impossible for them to create one.

Um....the paper describes the formation of new genes via the copying and combination of different parts of different genes. Basically what you're arguing is that taking different letters of the alphabet, copying them, and combining them doesn't count as "making words".

Don't be silly.
Mutations alter and corrupt an existing language and instruction manual. Mutations can't take 'sugar' and create a language, or a code, and certainly not a gene.

 

[Tyrathca]

Irrespective of not being able to explain species notwithstanding, perhaps you could enlighten us knownothing's why it is that all that has evolved is NOT cloned from and orginal copy?

Can you repeat that in English? Is this a question about why mating is such a common strategy among organisms?

And if so what likelihood are you to actually argue the point or will you just move onto another thing for me to explain? I get rather tired of the "Creationist Whack-a-Mole" style of arguing that so commonly follows these types of questions and would rather not waste my time if you're in no mood to actually talk.

 

[Rosenritter]

Can you repeat that in English? Is this a question about why mating is such a common strategy among organisms?

And if so what likelihood are you to actually argue the point or will you just move onto another thing for me to explain? I get rather tired of the "Creationist Whack-a-Mole" style of arguing that so commonly follows these types of questions and would rather not waste my time if you're in no mood to actually talk.

How about we just skip right to the "mating" question. Please explain how "sex" evolved from an organism that had non-sexual reproduction. My theory is "In the beginning, God created them male and female." Whenever I see this question asked in debates, the evolutionist stammers, and says something like "We can talk about that when you're older..."

 

[Rosenritter]

No... assuming that you thought the title of the article was good

Don't be silly.
Mutations alter and corrupt an existing language and instruction manual. Mutations can't take 'sugar' and create a language, or a code, and certainly not a gene.

If you employed a million monkeys with a million typewriters for a million years, even if you wrote Shakespeare by accident, it wouldn't mean anything unless you had people that read English.

So even if you somehow against all odds formed a DNA strand from random interactions, which is far more unlikely than the monkey scenario given that there are destructive forces working at the same time (and even faster) than what randomly builds upon itself, what good is it unless you have an organism that is already programmed to know what to do with it?

DNA isn't life, it's a code that is read by things that are alive.